Walecki v Regional Court In Wloclawek, Poland

Leaving a country while owing money does not, by itself, establish fugitive status for extradition purposes. The surrounding circumstances must support an inference that the person left to avoid the consequences of criminal conduct or prosecution. A finding of fugitive status must be justified by the evidence, including any dishonest disposal of secured property and the person’s knowledge of the consequences.

Delay will not make extradition disproportionate unless it is culpable or otherwise has a sufficiently serious effect on the fairness or proportionality of the requested return. The court may uphold extradition where the offence remains serious, the custody threshold is met, and the person can present his defence at trial.

The appellant appealed against District Judge Coleman’s decision of 11 January 2016 ordering his return to Poland to face a charge concerning the dishonest misappropriation of books pledged as security for a bank loan.

The appellant argued that the evidence did not establish that he was a fugitive because he had merely left Poland while owing money. He also relied on the substantial delay between the alleged offending, the Polish authorities’ decision to prosecute, the issue of the warrant and his arrest. The central issues were whether fugitive status had been established and whether delay made return disproportionate.

1. Appeal dismissed. The finding that the appellant was a fugitive was open to the District Judge. Leaving a country while owing money was not enough by itself, but the evidence supported an inference of dishonesty and that the appellant had left to escape the consequences of his actions.
2. The relevant conduct, if proved, would amount to a criminal offence. The evidence indicated that, under Polish law, the bank became owner of the books, making the alleged disposal capable of constituting theft.
3. The court accepted that the District Judge could have expressed the reasoning more clearly. Nevertheless, rejecting the appellant’s account that he had left the books for the bank, together with the circumstances suggestive of dishonesty, justified the finding of fugitive status. Accordingly, section 14 did not assist the appellant.
4. Even if section 14 had applied, the delay was not culpable. The fact that the authorities had some information in 2008 that the appellant was probably in the United Kingdom did not ordinarily justify issuing a warrant without positive information that he was in a particular country.
5. The delay was insufficient to make return disproportionate under section 21(A). The allegation was serious and met the custody threshold. The appellant could contest the allegation at trial, and any question of conviction or sentence was for the Polish court.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against District Judge Coleman’s decision of 11 January 2016 was dismissed.